It IS His Land!

It IS His Land!

******************

I’m probably gonna tick some of the readers of this site off with what I’m about to say, but here goes, anyway: The land that Flight 93 fell to earth upon… BELONGS to the LANDOWNER! Yep! Simple as that! It’s his to do with what he will… or as the case may be, what he will not!

All I know about the fracas surrounding the attempt to acquire that piece of land is what I have read in the papers and seen, and heard, on TV. Admittedly, it was not much. But the fact remains, IT IS HIS LAND!

A man’s right to his property, and to do with that property what he will, was established as far back as the Magna Carta when King John of England was “forced to acquiesce” to his fellow Englishmen’s rights to hold property. Later those exact same rights were brought to America and incorporated into our US Constitution. There they remain… even today. As a matter of fact, our Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: that government must not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law are derived directly form the Magna Carta. With the addition of the Bill of Rights, to our US Constitution, specific protections for property rights were added, including the due process and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment as well as five other clauses, indicating that the protection of property rights was a major concern in the crafting of the Bill of Rights.

There is an excellent article posted at: http://prfamerica.org/SieganSynopsis.html by the Property Rights Foundation of America, Inc. The Article is by: by Professor Bernard H. Siegan. We recommend it.

For a very long time in this country, one could not vote if one did not own land. There are times, these days, when I feel there was a certain carelessness when this was changed. There are American citizens voting today who have no clue what, or for whom, they are voting. An owner of land, of property, has proven, already, that he has some responsibility about himself; else wise he would not be the holder of that piece of real estate.

There is one fact that remains constant: the landowner OWNS that piece of land! He can set any price he wants for the land, or, no price at all. If the would-be buyers want it… they can pay his price.

Unfortunately, experience has taught us that standing against an emotional wave is nigh unto impossible. So, I expect, in the end, the landowner will either have to sell the land, or suffer the weight of public rage, fueled by emotion, until he buckles.

It has been just a short time ago that the American public was all up in arms over the Supreme Court’s ruling for the right of Public Domain… for a city’s right to condemn a piece of property just so they could claim it, develop it, and increase that town’s tax base. I, too, think that is a horrible way to treat property and land owners in America. It very close, indeed, to what King John, of England, was doing when the landowners revolted and the Magna Carta was forced upon the King.

Then, there is the argument of what is MORAL in this matter. I won’t go there… except to ask, whose morality will be the standard used to judge the eventual outcome of this matter.

Seems to me, the landowner is well within his rights to ask whatever price the market will bear for his land.


Longstreet


Filed under:
conservative+property+rights+constitutional